On Jan 28, 2008 1:30 PM, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
wrote:
ned+dkim(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
But beyond that, I have to say I'm a bit confounded by the concern for
invalid messages shown here. There are a gazillion ways for messages
> to be invalid and attempting to account for them all in our
> specifications is a practical impossibility. And yet many members
> of this group seem to have no problem blithely ignoring various
> legitimate protocol features. I find this dichotomy to be more
> than a little perflexing.
+1.
+1,000,000
I am VERY sorry if I had anything to do with this thread going as long
as it did.
My reply to the first message was just to clear up my confusion.
Regards,
Damon
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html